| Signal |
Introduction |
Review |
Design |
Evaluation |
Conclusion |
| 10 (Perfect) |
Defines the project area and its place within the subject. The introduction
proceeds from the wider concerns of Computer Science to the specific subject
of the report by way of an orderly and natural progression of ideas. |
Reviews the background to the project comprehensively, incorporates relevant
issues succinctly, omits the irrelevant. Uses the review to identify all
the main issues, which are then analysed and developed. The review is a
penetrating analysis showing an impressive grasp of the subject and excellent
judgement in the selection of previous work that should be applied in the
project; it gives new insights into the project area not immediately identifiable
from the literature. |
From the review, explains the rationale behind the design
of the work done, comparing all alternative designs and justifying the particular
choices made. Describes the work done succinctly, but in enough detail for
the reader to appreciate all the significant points. There is something
distinctly ambitious about what has been attempted and the student has carried
off the attempt with style, rarely defeated by problems encountered and
more typically finding some clever solution. |
Evaluates the artefact, comparing results expected from the theory (including
those for alternative designs) with those obtained in practice |
States clear conclusions from the work done, making accurate predictions
of results that would be obtained by applying the present work in new areas. |
| 9 (excellent) |
Defines the project area and its place within the subject. The introduction
proceeds from the wider concerns of Computer Science to the specific subject
of the report by way of an orderly and natural progression of ideas. |
Reviews the background to the project comprehensively, incorporates relevant
issues succinctly, omits the irrelevant. Uses the review to identify all
the main issues, which are then analysed and developed. The review is a
penetrating analysis showing an impressive grasp of the subject and excellent
judgement in the selection of previous work that should be applied in the
project; it gives new insights into the project area not immediately identifiable
from the literature. |
From the review, explains the rationale behind the design
of the work done, comparing all alternative designs and justifying the particular
choices made. Describes the work done succinctly, but in enough detail for
the reader to appreciate all the significant points. There is something
distinctly ambitious about what has been attempted and the student has carried
off the attempt with style, rarely defeated by problems encountered and
more typically finding some clever solution. |
Evaluates the artefact, comparing results expected from the theory with
those obtained in practice. |
States clear conclusions from the work done, identifying related problems
areas to which the present work may be applied. |
| 8 (very good) |
Defines the project area. |
Reviews the background to the project comprehensively, incorporates relevant
issues succinctly, omits the irrelevant. Uses the review to identify all
the main issues, which are then analysed and developed. |
From the review, explains the rationale behind the design
of the work done, comparing all alternative designs and justifying the particular
choices made. Describes the work done succinctly, but in enough detail for
the reader to appreciate significant points. There is something distinctly
ambitious about what has been attempted and the student has carried off
the attempt with style, rarely defeated by problems encountered and more
typically finding some clever solution. |
Evaluates the artefact, comparing results expected from the theory with
those obtained in practice. |
States clear conclusions from the work done, identifying related problems
areas to which the present work may be applied. |
| 7 (Good) |
Defines the project area. |
Reviews the background to the project, incorporates all relevant issues.
Uses the review to identify the main issues, most of which are then analysed. |
From the review, explains the rationale behind the design
of the work done, comparing some alternative designs and justifying the
particular choices made. Describes the work done in enough detail for the
reader to appreciate significant points. This part of the report reveals
more than mere competence in the application of standard knowledge; there
is a satisfying quality and thoroughness about the work, and it is free
from any significant defects. |
Evaluates the artefact, comparing results expected from the theory with
those obtained in practice. |
States most of the conclusions that can reasonably be drawn from the work
done. |
| 6 (Quite good) |
Defines the project area. |
Reviews the background to the project, incorporates some relevant issues.
Identifies the main issues, most of which are then analysed. |
Explains the rationale behind the design of the work done,
comparing some alternative designs and justifying the particular choices
made. Describes the work in enough detail for the reader to appreciate significant
points. Gives a convincing account of how the relevant problems were mostly
solved and how some of the unexpected difficulties were resolved to obtain
a worthwhile overall result. |
Evaluates the artefact, comparing results expected from the theory with
those obtained in practice. |
States some conclusions from the work done. |
| 5 (Satisfactory) |
Defines the project area. |
Reviews the background to the project. Identifies the main issues, some
of which are then analysed. |
Explains the rationale behind the design of the work done,
comparing some alternative designs. Describes the work in enough detail
for the reader to appreciate significant points. Gives a convincing account
of how the relevant problems were mostly solved and how some of the unexpected
difficulties were resolved to obtain a worthwhile overall result. |
Evaluates the artefact. |
States some conclusions from the work done. |
| 4 (Rather poor) |
Defines the project area. |
Reviews the background to the project; the review is roughly right in
what it says, but has little to show that the writer really understands
the subject. |
Lists some design issues, most of which are relevant to
the project. Describes the work done. Reports that the student has done
more or less what was intended, but has also abandoned some of their aims
when faced with unexpected problems so that the final result is rather modest.
The report discusses very little above the 'nuts and bolts' level and even
there it lacks due proportion. |
Evaluates the artefact. |
States some conclusions from the work done. |
| 3 (Poor) |
Defines the project area. |
Lists some issues, some of which are relevant to the project. |
Describes the work done. It is likely that any artefact
is fully developed, but that the original aim of the project are unfulfilled. |
|
States some conclusions from the work done. |
| 2 (Very poor) |
Defines the project area. |
Lists some issues, few of which are relevant to the project. |
Describes some aspects of the work done, though it is
possible that any artefact might not be fully developed and the description
might be incomplete. |
|
States some conclusions from the work done. |
| 1 (Abysmal) |
Defines the project area. |
States at least one issue relevant to the project. |
Describes some aspects of the work done, though any artefact
will not have been fully developed and the description is incomplete. |
|
|
| 0 (Worthless) |
|
|
|
|
|